What are some examples of people making a prediction of the form “Although X happening seems like obviously a bad thing, in fact the good second-order effects would outweigh the bad first-order effects, so X is good actually”, and then turning out to be correct?
(Loosely inspired by this quick take, although I definitely don’t mean to imply that the author is making such a prediction in this case.)
Many economic arguments take this form and are pretty solid, eg “although lowering the minimum wage would cause many to get paid less, in the longer term more would be willing to hire, so there will be more jobs, and less risk of automation to those currently with jobs. Also, services would get cheaper which benefits everyone”.
The arguments are as valid as any other price-floor argument, the reason many economists are skeptical is (according to my understanding of the evidence) because of limited experimental validation, and opposite effects when looking at correlational data, however with many of that correlational data one is reminded of the scientist who believes that ACs make rooms warmer rather than cooler. That is, it seems very likely that believing minimum wages are good is a luxury belief which people can afford to hold & implement when they are richer and their economy is growing, so you see a correlation between minimum wage levels and economic growth. Especially in developed OECD countries.
Oh thanks, that’s a good point, and maybe explains why I don’t really find the examples given so far to be compelling. I’d like examples of the first type, i.e. where the bad effect causes the good effect.
lots of food and body things that are easily verifiable, quick, and robust. take med, get headache, not die. take poison, kill cancer, not die. stop eating good food, blood sugar regulation better, more coherent. cut open body, move some stuff around, knit it together, tada healthier.
all of these are extremely specific, if you do them wrong you get bad effect. take wrong med, get headache, still die. take wrong poison, die immediately. stop eating good food but still eat crash inducing food, unhappy and not more coherent. cut open body randomly, die quickly.
“Yes, the thing this person saying is heinous and will have bad consequences, but punishing them for it will create chilling effects that would outweigh the good first-order effects”
Despite building more housing being bad for property prices and property-owners in the short-term, we should expect them to go up in-aggregate in the long run via network effects.
What are some examples of people making a prediction of the form “Although X happening seems like obviously a bad thing, in fact the good second-order effects would outweigh the bad first-order effects, so X is good actually”, and then turning out to be correct?
(Loosely inspired by this quick take, although I definitely don’t mean to imply that the author is making such a prediction in this case.)
Many economic arguments take this form and are pretty solid, eg “although lowering the minimum wage would cause many to get paid less, in the longer term more would be willing to hire, so there will be more jobs, and less risk of automation to those currently with jobs. Also, services would get cheaper which benefits everyone”.
There doesn’t seem to be consensus among economists regarding whether those “solid arguments” actually describe the world we’re living in, though.
The arguments are as valid as any other price-floor argument, the reason many economists are skeptical is (according to my understanding of the evidence) because of limited experimental validation, and opposite effects when looking at correlational data, however with many of that correlational data one is reminded of the scientist who believes that ACs make rooms warmer rather than cooler. That is, it seems very likely that believing minimum wages are good is a luxury belief which people can afford to hold & implement when they are richer and their economy is growing, so you see a correlation between minimum wage levels and economic growth. Especially in developed OECD countries.
I think it’s useful to think about the causation here.
Is it:
Intervention → Obvious bad effect → Good effect
For example: Terrible economic policies → Economy crashes → AI capability progress slows
Or is it:
Obvious bad effect ← Intervention → Good effect
For example: Patient survivably poisoned ← Chemotherapy → Cancer gets poisoned to death
Oh thanks, that’s a good point, and maybe explains why I don’t really find the examples given so far to be compelling. I’d like examples of the first type, i.e. where the bad effect causes the good effect.
lots of food and body things that are easily verifiable, quick, and robust. take med, get headache, not die. take poison, kill cancer, not die. stop eating good food, blood sugar regulation better, more coherent. cut open body, move some stuff around, knit it together, tada healthier.
all of these are extremely specific, if you do them wrong you get bad effect. take wrong med, get headache, still die. take wrong poison, die immediately. stop eating good food but still eat crash inducing food, unhappy and not more coherent. cut open body randomly, die quickly.
“Yes, the thing this person saying is heinous and will have bad consequences, but punishing them for it will create chilling effects that would outweigh the good first-order effects”
Despite building more housing being bad for property prices and property-owners in the short-term, we should expect them to go up in-aggregate in the long run via network effects.